Originally Posted by Leslie

Not really. The information age has disallowed Trump to hide his ties to the KKK. It's all right there in his Twitter feed and has been for over a year now.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Sorry, should have said I was talking about Hillary.

Originally Posted by Leslie

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. If we had a decent alternative to Hillary, many would pursue that option.

Originally Posted by Boiler

I have no problem with she is crooked but he is more so, but that is not what most of the posts cover.

Originally Posted by anotherlimey

I have no sympathy for them. Obviously, they must have weak arguments.

This thread is about the election, an election that has only three options - Clinton, Trump or don't vote.

But in reality this election isn't right vs left or Republican vs Democrat. This election is sane vs insane, intellectual vs foolish, tolerant vs xenophobic, globalism vs isolationism, it's love vs hate.

This shouldn't even be a competition.

So when someone comes along and says "but, Hillary had her own email server", or "but Hillary lied to Benghazi families" (that has still not been proven) I'm thinking you must be incredibly stupid to base your vote on minor issues when the future of the country is at stake.

Clinton's not perfect but she is the only sane option in this election.

Originally Posted by Leslie

Trump was just in Dallas doing a fund raiser and most of the conservative, right wing, Republican donors, no-showed.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Well that shows some gumption on there part, wish it was the same on the other side.

Originally Posted by Leslie

This doesn't even make sense.

Which "other side" ? The other side that lives in your imagination? Do you think people are donating money to Clinton yet who secretly hope she will lose?

The people that are showing up and supporting Hillary actually want her to win this election. There are many varied reasons for their support (one being that Trump is an unacceptable choice) but they're serious about their support.

Originally Posted by Leslie

They should present better arguments. I listen to conservative pundits all of the time (Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Hugh Hewitt) and quite often agree with them --- or I at least respect their arguments. Honestly, even the "right wing" is overwhelmingly embarrassed at their nominee and jumping ship ... left right and center of the "right wing".

There are conservative arguments to be made against Clinton but, as a moderate, why should I help them make their own case?

Originally Posted by Leslie

I disagree. Zargof has been the best source of arguments against Clinton and he's a freakin' liberal. There are only a couple of die-hard Hillary supporters on this thread. There have been plenty of critics and critiques of Clinton on this thread.

You like to ridicule us, yet you offer NOTHING as an alternative.

I'm getting a little sick of being told, on this thread, that I'm blinkered and stupid because I won't disavow Clinton. Look at my ****ing choices. Seriously.

Originally Posted by Jerseygirl

You are one of the few on this thread who does not have blinkers on. As for most I dont have time for them.

Originally Posted by Leslie

Boiler's memes don't make that distinction. Basically, anybody who is leaning toward Clinton is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP

We could avoid some of the false claims if some time was spent on research, rather than just relying upon "what you heard" or some disinformation-oriented blog.

For example, non-profits have to file a 990 tax return. 990s include salary information. Chelsea Clinton is listed, and her income there is zero.

Notice that I didn't copy that from some third-rate political blog. I went instead to the source document and simply looked it up. No need for the Daily Mail or the Washington Times to tell us how to think, when the facts are readily available.

Originally Posted by Leslie

Boiler's memes don't make that distinction. Basically, anybody who is leaning toward Clinton is stupid and deserving of ridicule.

Originally Posted by Boiler

I do not say that all, I know a lot of people, organisations have invested substantial sums in backing Hillary.

How much does one of her speeches cost?

I assume they are not stupid in doing so, could be an excellent return.